[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

jonathan jonathan at bigfatfrog67.me
Mon Apr 28 20:40:33 UTC 2014


I couldn't agree more.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 28/04/2014 19:42, Steve Coast wrote:
> http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-shame/ 
>
>
> --
>
> OpenStreetMap <http://osm.org/> is the global, open and free map 
> dataset that anyone can use. It is created by a huge community of 
> volunteers who pour their time and energy in to the project. It's also 
> fun, beautiful and cool.
>
> So it's sad that people don't want to respect the license. It asks two 
> very simple things:
>
>  1. Please say you're using OSM. This is very simple
>     <http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright>.
>  2. If you change the map, please give the changes back. This is
>     called "share-alike".
>
> Compared to paying a lot of money for incredibly license-restricted 
> data, you'd think people would be ok with these requirements.
>
> Sadly, this isn't the case.
>
> There are those who are now willfully disregarding our tiny little 
> requirements. It's being framed as some gigantic and unreasonable 
> proposition, asking to say where the data came from or giving data 
> back when you fix things. As if it's completely bananas to ask such a 
> thing. As if Linux or Wikipedia should be disaster ghost towns while 
> asking for exactly the same thing of their users.
>
> This is just baloney. The real comparison should be; if you don't like 
> the license you're free to use expensive and complicatedly-license 
> data. That's your option. Those guys are just a phone call away, and 
> will be happy to sell you data. You'd probably find that they have 
> very strong attribution requirements, just like OSM does.
>
> It is the ultimate disrespect to the volunteers who built the data to 
> not even attribute their contributions. It's even worse that there are 
> some who're trying to also own OSM for themselves by taking away the 
> share-alike requirement.
>
> Is the license perfect? I'm afraid not. Specifically we need more 
> clarification around the technical implementation and use of geocodes, 
> especially in relation to other datasets. It's hard today to 
> technically comply with some of those edge cases.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about. We're speaking here about the 
> simple ask, that if you use OSM you please say clearly on the map that 
> it is OSM. You're getting a great dataset, for free, under an open 
> license, that millions of people are contributing to. We're not asking 
> for $100,000 license fees, we're just asking that you say who we are.
>
> It's the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this.
>
> How could you deny people that?
>
> Apparently, easily and willfully. People within the OSM community have 
> been frustrated and trying to fix it for some time. If we were a 
> proprietary map supplier we'd revoke a license or jump to legal options.
>
> We are much nicer than that. I propose a four stage plan, organized on 
> OSM's legal mailing list 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk> and tracked on 
> the wiki:
>
>  1. A polite email, linking to our requirements
>  2. A week later: Another polite email, warning of what's to come.
>  3. A week later: Another polite email, same as above
>  4. A week later: Very public naming and shaming on OSMs various
>     social media channels and blogs
>
> Most people who miss our requirements are making a simple error. This 
> is a process that gives three opportunities and an entire month to 
> correct the mistake. This is not a brand new idea or process. The FSF 
> and others have named & shamed (and have even went further 
> <http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/12/11/1745254/fsf-files-suit-against-cisco-for-gpl-violations>) 
> for GPL violations in the past.
>
> In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and 
> maturity of the project, that there are those out there that want to 
> own it or take all the advantages without even saying where the data 
> came from. But in the end, we have to defend ourselves for what 
> little, tiny things we ask.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20140428/58d49bf5/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list